Talk:List of University of Manchester people
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Feline Hymnic in topic List? Or collection of mini-biographies?
 | Text and/or other creative content from List of University of Manchester people was copied or moved into List of University of Manchester alumni. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mark 1
editMark 1 was not the first modern computer but rather one of the first. Z3 was a few years earlier (see Zuse_Z3). Corrected this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.74.7 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on your set of criteria of what a modern computer is, really. I studied CS at Manchester, and they were pretty insistent on the fact that the Manchester Baby was the first on account of the fact it could store data electronically. Of course they also taught us about Zuse, and I've always maintained that he had at least as good a case for claiming to be the first.
- I've altered the entry slightly so as to explicitly say why the Baby and Mark 1 were so significant, rather than just that they were. -- Fursday 17:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Brian Cox
editI'm not sure whether Brian Cox should be mentioned in such a prominent list of physicists, I do not think he is of the same notoriety as the others on the list. 84.68.35.57 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think if I was making a similar list for Warwick of Oxford I would include Ian Stewart, and Richard Dawkins as well known popularizers of science, and would put them under maths and biology respectively. So yes I would keep him here amongst this more august company. Billlion (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
List? Or collection of mini-biographies?
editSome of the entries here are becoming mini-biographical essays. But surely the place for such essay-like material is at the article of the subject, not in this list article. See some of the entries under some of the science subjects.
I propose pruning such essays in this article to restore its list-like characters: name and a couple of notable features.
This edit gives an example.
Thoughts?